Sekerke v. Leo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke, a pro se prisoner, moved for an order requiring defendants and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to grant him 'Pro-Per Status' to access the jail law library. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not shown entitlement to relief and that the court lacked jurisdiction to direct the actions of non-parties or entities not properly before it.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for an Order Requiring Defendants and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to Give Plaintiff 'Pro-Per Status' Denied“For the above reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the relief sought was directed at entities (San Diego County Sheriff’s Department) and policies (jail library access) that were not properly before the court or within the court's jurisdiction to order in this specific action. The only defendant who had answered was Dr. Arturo Leon, who the court noted had no influence over the jail library policies. The court properly cited the principle that while prisoners have a right of access to courts, this does not mandate specific administrative statuses or unlimited library access, and that such operational matters are best directed to the responsible administrative body (the County of San Diego) rather than through a court order in a lawsuit against unrelated or insufficiently connected defendants. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the legal standard for prisoner access to courts (Bounds/Lewis) to limit the scope of the right, and it correctly identifies a jurisdictional/procedural defect: the court cannot issue an order directing the conduct of a non-party (San Diego County Sheriff’s Department) or a party (Dr. Leon) who has no control over the specific administrative function (library access) in question. The court properly directs the plaintiff to seek relief from the administrative body responsible for the jail (County of San Diego).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, Booking Case No.: 19cv0034-GPC(RBB) No. 18165284, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR AN ORDER v. REQUIRING DEFENDANTS AND 14 THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARTURO LEO, et al., 15 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT TO Defendants. GIVE HIM “PRO-PER STATUS” AT 16 THE SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL 17 [ECF NO. 70]
18 19 20 21 22 23 On April 29, 2020 nunc pro tunc April 23, 2020, Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke 24 filed a motion for an order directing Defendants and the San Diego County Sheriff’s 25 Department to give him “Pro-Per Status” at the San Diego Central Jail, where he is 26 currently incarcerated [ECF No. 70]. Plaintiff states that he needs this status in order to 27 gain access to the jail’s law library. 28 1 Prison officials must provide inmates with meaningful access to the courts. 2 Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977). While the right of access to the courts 3 requires that inmates be given the opportunity to attack their sentences or conditions of 4 confinement, the right does not guarantee a prisoner the ability to “litigate effectively 5 once in court.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Prison officials are not 6 required to provide unlimited access to prison law libraries, but rather may regulate the 7 use of the library to ensure the security of the facility. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of 8 Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985). “Prison officials of necessity must 9 regulate the time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used.” Id. 10 Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief. Moreover, the Court lacks the 11 jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Plaintiff seeks an order directing “Defendants 12 and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department” to provide him the “Pro-Per Status” that 13 he claims is necessary to access the prison law library. The only defendant that has 14 currently appeared in the case is Dr. Arturo Leon,1 and there is no indication that he has 15 any influence over the policies and practices of the San Diego Central Jail library. As the 16 District Judge previously indicated, (see Apr. 15, 2020 Order 13 n.8, ECF No. 68), 17 Plaintiff’s request for law library access should be directed to the County of San Diego, 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 25 1 Following Judge Curiel’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 26 File Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 53] and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 68], the 27 only remaining defendants are Arturo Leon, Jon Montgomery, Dane Olsen, and the County of San Diego. Only Defendant Leon has filed an Answer (see ECF No. 73). The other three defendants have 28 1 || which operates the San Diego Central Jail, not to this Court. 2 For the above reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 ||Dated: May 5, 2020 { Rate 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28